30.503, Confs: Comp Ling, Gen Ling, Historical Ling, Ling Theories, Semantics/Germany

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-30-503. Thu Jan 31 2019. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 30.503, Confs: Comp Ling, Gen Ling, Historical Ling, Ling Theories, Semantics/Germany

Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Jeremy Coburn
Managing Editor: Becca Morris
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Robinson, Peace Han, Nils Hjortnaes, Yiwen Zhang, Julian Dietrich
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Everett Green <everett at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 22:59:33
From: Gianina Iordachioaia [gianina.iordachioaia at gmail.com]
Subject: Zero Derivation (Conversion)

 
Zero Derivation (Conversion) 

Date: 21-Jun-2019 - 22-Jun-2019 
Location: Stuttgart, Germany 
Contact: Gianina Iordachioaia 
Contact Email: gianina.iordachioaia at gmail.com 

Linguistic Field(s): Computational Linguistics; General Linguistics; Historical Linguistics; Linguistic Theories; Semantics 

Meeting Description: 

(Session of 8th International Workshop on Nominalizations)

To allow for a broader discussion on categorial shift in morphology and its
interfaces, this year’s edition of JENom proposes a special theme on
zero-derived nominals and zero derivation (or conversion), which will be
integrated with the general theme of nominalizations.

Zero derivation is a type of categorial shift whereby the semantic change
undergone by the input is not formally reflected in the output, thus
challenging the one-to-one form-meaning mapping in morphological processes
and, implicitly, their modeling. Such mismatches are known to have led to a
split in morphological theory between approaches that are strictly faithful to
the form-meaning isomorphism and others that model the morphosyntax and
lexical semantics independently of morphophonology (see Don 1993 for an
overview). One important difference between the two approaches is whether they
employ zero derivational suffixes or not (cf. the debate in syntax-based
models of morphology such as Distributed Morphology and the Exo-Skeletal Model
as described in Borer 2013: 322-363). A further challenge raised by zero
derivation is the difficulty to assess it across languages given essential
differences in terms of categorial classes, productivity, and formal marking,
as Valera (2005) notes.

Studies on nominalizations as well as topics concerning zero derivation (e.g.,
the status of the zero derivational suffix, how to determine the direction of
derivation in zero-derived pairs of words, the crosslinguistic modeling of
zero derivation with reference to any lexical category a.o.) are welcome to
this eighth edition of the JENom workshop. We particularly encourage
data-oriented contributions from computational, experimental and diachronic
studies on various languages, besides theoretical approaches.
 






------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:

              The IU Foundation Crowd Funding site:
       https://iufoundation.fundly.com/the-linguist-list

               The LINGUIST List FundDrive Page:
            https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-30-503	
----------------------------------------------------------